How's it possible?

[DeepSix]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Ponape

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 10827 troops, 49 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 17396 troops, 142 guns, 0 vehicles

Japanese assault odds: 22 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
161 casualties reported
Guns lost 11

Allied ground losses:
15263 casualties reported
Guns lost 138


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Kuala

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 750 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 381 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles

Japanese assault odds: 106 to 1



Allied ground losses:
6 casualties reported


Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Obviously, I'm missing something. I've never imagined myself a strategic genius or anything, but I landed 2 whole U.S. infantry divisions at Ponape (defended by a naval construction brigade, an engineer maintenance unit, and an infantry unit -- forget size and type, but not a division), bombed it once (then withdrew carriers to avoid retribution from stronger enemy group), and, similarly, at Kuala I landed two Dutch infantry battalions against a single construction battalion.

Both landings were amply supplied; in the previous combat round neither side achieved anything so overwhelming (assault odds 0 to 1 or 1 to 1 on both sides).

How is it that in this round the AI got such overwhelming odds? This doesn't make any sense to me. I would really like to see whatever logic is behind the results I got. And that's not a complaint so much as a genuine desire to understand.

[Iridium]

Hmm, were your units at very high "disorganised" levels? This might account for it. Gotta watch those numbers...

[DeepSix]

Good point, Iridium... and I don't know exactly what those levels were, but the remnants of the 24th that are still on the Ponape transports are at

Experience 94
Morale 92
...
Disruption 17
Fatigue 14

if that is any indicator. I landed the 24th and 40th ID and now the entire 40th is gone. The remnant of the 24th already landed is absolutely blown out now (disruption 88, fatigue 89). At Kuala, 1 Dutch battalion retreated into the bush; the other is gone completely.

[Edit: Loaded up the save I made just before combat -- the unit pieces that have landed at Ponape are indeed blown (disruption 85, fatigue 50). Similar for Kuala. Don't remember the exact numbers, but I don't think they weren't anywhere near that high when I embarked them and sent them on their way -- so the only thing I can think of is the "unloading over the beach" phase and the coastal defense gun issue. What do you think?]

[Jim D Burns]

How many prep points did they have for their target? It appears they were very unprepared. Amphibious ops need very high prep points to prevent severe disruptions during landings.

Jim

[DeepSix]

Jim,

That is something I know they did not have. They have high prep points for Truk, which is the next stop. Originally I was going to bypass Ponape, but changed my mind -- so that's my contribution to their plight.[:)]

Incidentally, I replayed from the last save (just repeated the combat round again) and this time got much more "reasonable" results:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Ponape

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 10827 troops, 49 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 17176 troops, 141 guns, 0 vehicles

Japanese assault odds: 7 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
487 casualties reported
Guns lost 16

Allied ground losses:
180 casualties reported
Guns lost 8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Ponape

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 16921 troops, 125 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 9897 troops, 27 guns, 0 vehicles

Allied assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 4)

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 2


Japanese ground losses:
93 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Allied ground losses:
353 casualties reported
Guns lost 16

[KDonovan]

also what level are playing the AI on. If its on "very hard", then the AI gets a combat advantage over you, which my also account for that disaster

[DeepSix]

Hi KDonovan, thanks -- difficulty is set to "historical."

[saj42]

It's not just disruption and fatigue.
As Jim said, Prep pts would have doubled the Jap Assualt Value if at 100% prep.
Also your units would be severely disadvantaged by low prep and lack of an Amph HQ.
What was the status of your squads in the two Divs? - the numbers in (##) on the units screen prior to the combat.

[Feinder]

disruption 85, fatigue 50

That just screams, "Ouch!".

-F-

[hawker]

You think that results are bad,check my very suspicious results,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 66,32

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 565215 troops, 5452 guns, 1202 vehicles

Defending force 145006 troops, 1793 guns, 311 vehicles

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
20838 casualties reported
Guns lost 642
Vehicles lost 96

Allied ground losses:
1977 casualties reported
Guns lost 154
Vehicles lost 3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your results is bad,mine is idiotic. And this is open terrain!

[Nikademus]

what's suspicious about it?

[Treetop64]

ORIGINAL: hawker

You think that results are bad,check my very suspicious results,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 66,32

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 565215 troops, 5452 guns, 1202 vehicles

Defending force 145006 troops, 1793 guns, 311 vehicles

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
20838 casualties reported
Guns lost 642
Vehicles lost 96

Allied ground losses:
1977 casualties reported
Guns lost 154
Vehicles lost 3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your results is bad,mine is idiotic. And this is open terrain!

"Open Terrain", as in "No Fort Level 9", right?

[leehunt27@bloomberg.net]

Disastrous amphibious landings can recover-- if you land a few divisions with support HQ's etc and survive with enough supply, many of the disrupted squads will return over a month or so. But most of your heavy equipment, engineers etc is usually lost forever. But landing without prep points, enough supply, or support HQ's and engineers can lead to such a horrific attack like you experienced.

[Sardaukar]

Bad dice rolls compared with leaders failing their dice rolls...and there you go. Check your leaders, they should have high land combat skill if trying amph assaults. And amphibious assaults especially without prep points are bad...and add AGC with Amph Force HQ to task force! Remember that enemy defending base with 100 prep points are fighting better than an attacker with 100 prep points too.

Those rural combats (outside bases) are nasty since enemy fort levels are not shown.